back to article Apple Mac OS X: ten years old today

Mac OS X is - formally - ten years old today. The first full release, then simply codenamed 'Cheetah' - only later did the cat branding become part of Apple's marketing drive - was made available to Mac users on 24 March 2001, six months after the operating system made an appearance in public beta test form. Mac OS X Cheetah …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jake Silver badge


    Four pages, and no mention of BSD or the Mach kernel?

    Enjoy your delusion, Apple freetards ;-)

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      More omissions

      Quartz / Display Postscript for handling the UI. Licensed from Adobe but, as with many other things, Apple wasn't prepared to pay the full price - the ODBC manager is another example. Real WYSIWYG.

      CUPS for handling printing

      KHTML for the bundled browser and help system

      But what do you expect in 5 pages? I have two gripes - PowerPC's are probably as suitable now for the desktop as they ever were but IBM wasn't interested in Apple's business. In fact, they have more in common with ARM chips than either have with x86. And each version seemed to be two steps forward, one step back. Snow Leopard has for some been a fairly painful experience in the move to x86_64. Yes Finder has gone native but many of the drivers still have a way to go.

      Roll on Lion - will it bring ARM support with an accompanying MacBook Mini release? Or just lock down to the App Store™

    2. ThomH Silver badge

      Could be because it's not important to the story

      The story: a sea change in the OS offering from Apple, and all the user-facing changes it brought. Your allegation: it doesn't go into the internals, so obviously it's delusional. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

      There are a bunch of different bits of underlying technology in OS X. Some of them are Apple originated, some of them aren't. None of them are particularly relevant.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Not relevant?

        The display subsystem is not relevant?

      2. jake Silver badge

        @ThomH; AC13:39

        ThomH: "Your allegation: it doesn't go into the internals, so obviously it's delusional."

        Re-read mine. The delusional are the Apple freetards, not the author.

        AC13:39 "You bang on all the time about how great FOSS is"

        Me? I think I'm on record as saying all software sucks, all hardware sucks, all OSes suck, and all fanbois suck ...

        "and yet you complain when it's used by companies of whom you don't approve?

        Where did I complain about the use of FOSS in OSX? Re-read mine ... What I was pointing out was that the Author didn't acknowledge the FOSS under-pinnings of OSX. For the record, I actually like the concept of Apple's OSX ... but as a 30+ year BSD veteran, I have a few issues with their implementation.

        "You seem to miss the point that FOSS is given away by developers who want others to use their code. If the developers didn't want any commercial use of the code, they'd use an appropriate licence."

        Uh ... I think you are confusing me with someone else.

        "What next, maybe we shouldn't be allowed to run COTS on linux because we're paytards?"

        Yup. You're confusing me with someone else.

        1. Ted Treen


          "Me? I think I'm on record as saying all software sucks, all hardware sucks, all OSes suck, and all fanbois suck ..."

          So, to coin a metaphor, you're about as effective as a totally misanthropic priest...

          1. jake Silver badge

            @Ted Treen; AC15:44;

            Ted Treen sez: "So, to coin a metaphor, you're about as effective as a totally misanthropic priest..."

            Uh, no. I'm a realist. You appear to be an acolyte ... Me, I mix & match to get the job done. Yourself?

            AC15:44 opines: "That does sound like you think FOSS is much better, though doesn't it?"

            No. It says exactly what I meant. There are better solutions than the options provided by Cupertino & Redmond. Never mind FOSS, there are more than two commercial OSes out there, you know.

            As for: "The implication of what you wrote above is that you don't like commercial companies using FOSS."

            That's just plain daft. Read a few more of my comments on the subject.

            "And, no, I'm not confusing you with someone else..."

            Then you haven't been paying attention to what I've been typ(o)ing ...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward


          "I've been happily Redmond & Cupertino free for about 15 months. Both my bank balance and my digestion are better for it ... Try it, kiddies. There are alternatives out there. All mod cons & none of the drawbacks ... "

          That does sound like you think FOSS is much better, though doesn't it?

          The implication of what you wrote above is that you don't like commercial companies using FOSS.

          And, no, I'm not confusing you with someone else...

    3. The Fuzzy Wotnot


      I do thanks very much and it works well, so well I dumped my Windows kit and went totally Mac with a little touch of Ubuntu on the side for media-serving!

      Thanks for asking, that's very public spirited of you!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      You bang on all the time about how great FOSS is and yet you complain when it's used by companies of whom you don't approve? You seem to miss the point that FOSS is given away by developers who want others to use their code. If the developers didn't want any commercial use of the code, they'd use an appropriate licence.

      What next, maybe we shouldn't be allowed to run COTS on linux because we're paytards?

      1. Anonymous Coward


        OSX wasn't an Apple invention, but merely a reskinned OS from NeXT. I am shamed by not knowing this. No wonder the OS actually worked somewhat decently.

  2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Time flies...

    And I recall how PCs were crappy back then and CRTs were occupying the desk area and there was a permanent fight with the ISDN connector and installing Linux was mysterious and often painful.

    Also, the USA were still somehow acceptable.

  3. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Nice obituary piece

    From now on it's iOS, slowly but surely.

    1. Chad H.


      Just like Windows CE took over from regular 'Doze on the desktop.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        I can see MacOS X becoming more and more like iOS

        In both graphical style and being locked-down... Can't you?

        Have a look at Lion when it comes out.

        1. Stephen 2
          Thumb Down

          yes :(

          Unfortunately it does look like OS X is gradually being turned into iOS :(

    2. sT0rNG b4R3 duRiD

      This used to be my worry...

      But apple have annoyed me so much recently that I'm buying no more Apple products.

  4. Christian Berger Silver badge

    Well but it didn't actually work

    I used Mac OS X 10.2 for a while and it just didn't work. The system slowed down to a halt after a while. Updates paned the audio to one side, X11 support was abysmally bad, etc.

    At least back then it was Apples worst attempt at Unix. A/UX was far better.

  5. Richard 81


    "Snow Leopard - aka 10.6 - costs $29 / £26"

    Really? I didn't realise it had gotten so low.

    Last time I bought it was 10.3, which cost about £50 as I was a student.

    1. Ted Treen


      Snow Leopard was priced so low as it was more of an "Intel-only tidy-up & fine-tune" of Leopard.

      I expect Lion (in June/July this year) to be considered as a full upgrade, and it will probably be back to the £80 – £90 of previous "cats", with a family 5-user licence for around £130-ish.

      £90 or so is still very reasonable, when compared with the cost of Windows 7 Ultimate - and remember the OSX "Ultimate" is the only version produced, other than a specific Server version.

  6. DZ-Jay

    This Old(ish) Box?

    I see modern edition of This Old Box. I caught up with Mac OS X back in the Tiger days, when I bought my Mac Mini and left the Windoze world for good (well, at least for good at home). I remember the stripy look of the windows and menu bars, and I thought the entire look of the interface was neat and futuristic. Wow, I must say it does look dated today seeing those pictures. It indeed has come a long way.

    Thanks for the heart-warming review, Tony.


  7. stu 4


    "OpenStep's foundation was entirely different from the existing Mac OS. It was written for Intel CPUs, for instance"

    no it wasn't - it was OPEN - for various hardware - that was the point.

    previously it had been motorola and intel only (NeXTSTEP ran fine on intel architecture! - I had a P60 running it when they came out in 1994) . openstep ran on sun risc, intel and loads of other stuff.

    NeXTSTEP was my main dev machine at work in the 1990s, then Openstep on sparc stations and finally intel pcs.

  8. Doozerboy
    Jobs Halo

    Good review until....

    The last line. Snow Leopard cost 29 Quid because, in Apple's words' contained '0 new features'

    It was merely a speed bump. There's no way consumers would shell out £100 for that. I fully expect Lion to cost in the £75-£100 range.

  9. NightFox


    It's like watching a child grow-up; you don't notice how much they've changed till you pull out the photo album (OK, fire up iPhoto) and see what they used to look like. And to see how many of those icons have changed along the way barely unnoticed at the time... when did the preferences switch icon change to the cogs icon we have today and why didn't I notice?

  10. Marvin the Martian

    "OS X ought to cost $161 / £98"

    Shhh! Let sleeping cats lie!

  11. squilookle

    I don't like Apple or OS X

    But when it first came out, I was pretty impressed by it, and I did want a Mac back then.

    It could be argued that those of us using other OSes do have a lot to thank it for, as I believe others have been trying to keep up with some aspects of it over the last 10 years, resulting in better OSes for all of us.

    So, happy birthday, OS X.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Happy Birthday Indeed


      This is exactly why it's so stupid for the fanboys on both sides (sorry - all sides) to quit their moaning.

      Whether your favourite is OS X, iOS, Windows, Android, Linux, whatever. They all impact on each other, and overall we all benefit.

      Well - if companies would stop sueing each other every ten minutes for copying each others ideas.

  12. fearnothing

    Snow Leopard price...

    The reason Snow Leopard cost so little is because it was a largely behind-the-scenes update for performance. Apple was concerned its main user base wouldn't be willing to pay normal OS upgrade price for something that didn't add many visible features. Previous incarnations such as Tiger and Leopard were about £79 ($99) if I recall correctly. I expect Lion to be priced around this level.

    1. Andy Christ


      But OS X's MSRP had previously been $129 here in the States-- at least for Panther, Tiger and Leopard. And yes, Snow Leopard was issued merely as a performance upgrade for the Intel platform, the PPC probably having been taken as far as it could go with Leopard. Hence the subtle name change between the two OSes. I fully expect Lion to be priced in line with the previous releases.

  13. Doozerboy
    Jobs Horns


    I Love the OS but Finder is an absolute abomination of a file explorer. It's the single most frustrating thing about the OS.

    1. Robin

      re: Finder

      How so?

      Serious question. I mean, it does the job for me so I just wonder what people's beef is with it.


      1. DZ-Jay

        re: Finder

        From what I understand, the main complaint is that the Finder in Classic Mac OS was a "spatial" folder browser, meaning that it represented the physical space of folders as you work with them. This meant that you could open a folder, organize its icons, and *that* became the folder's layout. It didn't matter how many times you opened or closed it, it retained its form. This is more than just keeping preferences, it is an entirely different paradigm: The window you are operating on *is* the folder, not a "view" into the folder. Consequently, the folder could be opened in a single window at a time, since *that* window represent the actual folder. This offered a more personal and direct relationship with your documents, as opposed to just being a generic archiving container.

        By contrast, the Finder in Mac OS X is merely a file system browser. It offers a "view" into the state of the file system, so opening multiple windows on a folder is akin to viewing the same object from multiple angles, each one free to operate on the underlying structure equally. Each window in turn does not really represent the physical folder. The distinctions are sometimes subtle, but they are there.

        I think the new Finder is perfectly fine and adept to modern uses. There are some arguments against the spatial organization system applied to modern computers, since the number of files has increased significantly during the past 20 years. It may no longer be feasible to have a personal relationship with each individual file and folder in your file system.

        But this is the *Finder* we're talking about. Apple has not forgotten spatial organization concepts completely. Notice how applications like iPhoto or iTunes organize their respective objects in multiple dimensions which are contextual to the objects. These do not treat their objects as mere files in the file system--like so many other applications have done before; and I believe this is the reason they are so successful. Likewise, Spotlight and the dynamic Dock folders offer new ways to interact with your content directly without having to think in a hierarchical filing system.

        So ultimately, spatial file and object organization is fully alive in Mac OS X, while the Finder has been relegated to being just a file browser for those who want to delve into the underlying system and look for things "manually."


        1. Semihere

          Re: re: Finder


          Actually, if you turn on the correct settings in the Finder Preferences and View Options you can easily simulate the old 'Classic' Finder. It took me one or two iterations of OS X before I finally got my old way of navigating out of my system.

          > Turn on the option to open all folders in new windows

          > Set icon view as the default view

          That way it should behave very similarly to the classic Finder. Not 'perfect', I know, but it works.

          1. Frank Bough

            No, no, no!

            OS9 had THE best list view of any OS I've ever used, icon view was always useless by comparison. The Apple menu was excellent to - so much faster and cleaner than the dock - you could get to pretty much any file with a single click!

        2. ceebee

          oh the Finder...

          I am one of those who has never really liked the OSX Finder.... let's be honest I detest it.

          I fight with it ... I use it (just like the equally indadequate and dumbed down Windows Explorer in Windows7) but even after 10 years I still believe that for many purposes the Classic Finder leaves the OSX finder in the dirt.

          Yes, the OSX file browser can handle large numbers of files etc.better than the "Classic" Finder but for a day to day user it remains slow unwieldy mess that distance users from their files.

          Ever noticed how files pile up on users desktops. This is simply because the filing systems have failed the user who want easy direct access to his/her files.

          It is interesting that early mockups from 1982/83 of what became the Finder in the Macintosh show a divergence of opinion between supporters of the spatial version ultimately adopted and a browser model, backed by Steve Jobs. So it is not a surprise perhaps that the browser model is what users got, like it or not, in OSX.

          1. Anonymous Coward

            Not a fan of Finder

            I really don't like the OS X Finder. I find it mildly frustrating to use. It's ok for small file based tasks but if I want to do a lot of moving / copying I'll always go with bash in the Terminal.

            I honestly can't understand how, with all the OS X iterations they've not put any effort into improving it. Even Windows Explorer beats it.

            Finder aside, the main reason we have macs in our home is OS X. For me it's the best desktop OS, very elegant and a pleasure to use.

        3. Frank Bough


          How I want my spatial Finder back. :-[

      2. John 62
        Jobs Halo

        re: Finder

        indeed, I find the Finder rather good. File manipulation within open/save dialog boxes would be a nice-to-have, but column view is awesome and in actual Finder windows quickview is extra-useful. I don't care much about coverflow view, though.

        iPhoto's library being presented to the Finder as an opaque, monolithic blob is now an annoyance: I'd like to access individual photos via the Finder, but other than that it's a great system.

        1. Mme.Mynkoff


          iPhoto library:

          Right click, select "Show Package Contents" - and you're looking at them.

        2. DZ-Jay

          @John 62

          Although you can do that (as mentioned by Mme.Mynkoff), it defeats the purpose of what iPhoto brings: the idea that photos are not just bland "files," but objects with inherently special and unique properties. The same is done in Mail, Address Book, iCal, iTunes, and all their ilk: Why would you search in a generic hierarchical file system for, say, an appointment or contact? Appointments represent events in time, and contacts represent people or businesses.


          1. JEDIDIAH

            The un-unix-ness of MacOS.

            > the purpose of what iPhoto brings: the idea

            > that photos are not just bland "files," but

            > objects with inherently special and unique

            > properties.

            You get that with just a better Finder.

            You don't need a special tool for each type of file to achieve that.

            In fact you are far better off if such a tool is a more generalized system utility or even better something that can easily be scripted/automated.

            iPhoto mainly makes it harder to be organized.

            1. DZ-Jay


              >> "You get that with just a better Finder.

              >> You don't need a special tool for each type of file to achieve that."

              Only if you could know a priori every single file type the user is going to handle and define--at the operating system level--their attributes and organization mechanism. This is left to each individual application to provide, which I believe is the correct way.

              Some users don't have iPhoto installed, and some users may want to deal with JPEG files as line drawings (say, a graphic artist), or design plans (say, an architect), and not as photographs of people and events. The OS should not be making these decisions.


    2. magnetik


      If you don't like Finder try PathFinder. It's a far better tool, especially if you like more control over your file browsing / management app.

  14. Anonymous Coward

    Come on down, the price is right

    Even if Lion is around £79 / $99 it's not a bad thing really is it? It's still as cheap / cheaper than the cheapest version of Windows 7 but with a single version for all rather than having multiple versions with different functionality / prices leaving more money available for your beer fund!

    1. Doozerboy

      Remarkably cheap...

      considering you'll get the server bunged in with the price too

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        If only...

        It doesn't really matter if it's got server bundled, there is no Apple server class hardware to run it on, so it would be rather rude to charge for it.

  15. dz-015
    Jobs Halo

    Happy birthday, OS X!

    I started using Puma/10.1 back in 2002 and felt like I'd come home after a few grim years in a Windows wilderness (following the effective death of the Amiga). The great GUI combined with UNIX CLI was the best of both worlds - all the geek power you could ever need, combined with all the front-end apps you could ever want. It just keeps getting better and better, and I still absolutely love it.

    1. horse of a different colour


      Which begs the question, why can't MS bundle a decent CLI with Windows? The default CLI is an abomination compared to Linux/Unix/Mac.

      1. Ian Yates


        PowerShell is a much better CLI than cmd/command, and it takes a lot of lead from Linux/Unix CLIs (ls and ps, for example).

        MS finally put in features like coloured text for error outputs (and other) - amazing!

        I've seen lots of people complain about how different it is, but that's a lose-lose argument ("I hate cmd but ps is too different").

        I'm still a Bash man, though ;)

      2. Sugarmice

        MS CLI

        Actually, there is one, albeit not a bundled one. PowerShell is a seriously powerful CLI. In some regards considerably more powerful than the UNIX/POSIX shells from which it is clearly inspired. Like many Reg readers, I've been rather anti-MS for a while, but PowerShell is a very clear example of something Microsoft have definitely got right; take the concepts of the UNIX shell, and apply them to .NET objects so you can do pretty much anything from a simple command script to a GUI application all in the same scripting language.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward


          Is bundled with 2008/Win7. It's also very good indeed, there is even a linux port project in work.

          1. Goat Jam


            Can I do "ssh me@myserver"? If so then you've got a sale, if not (as I suspect) then I think I'll pass.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Goat Jam

              You could use Putty and related products?

              1. Goat Jam
                Paris Hilton


                The problem with that is I hate putty. Have you tried using putty with key auth? You cant use your standard ssh/rsa key, it has to be "converted" using a seperate app so that putty can use it. Why? Then there is the abominable copy/paste. Why on earth would you write a program that automatically pastes every time you copy? You select and copy a bunch of text in a putty console and it goes and pastes the whole lot to the command line again. Why? Who would want to do that? Have they not heard of the clipboard?

                No, i really hate putty. I'll stick with gnome shell thanks.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Goat Jam

                  Funnily I did wonder how you'd object to Putty, I haven't tried to use key auth, so I'll give you that one. However, the copy and paste functionallity copies when you highlite then pastes when you right click. It doesn't automatically paste whenever you copy.

                  Anyway, here is a list of ssh clients:

                  You could try OpenSSH.

  16. maxillius

    I musdt be in the odd camp then...

    ...because macs don't really do what I want them to do anymore.

    I'm no longer ashamed to say I'm happy with Windows.

    1. Chad H.


      What does a windows box do that a Mac doesn't?

      1. JEDIDIAH

        Hate to say this but...

        > What does a windows box do that a Mac doesn't?

        Macs are poorly equipped to deal with creative end users.

        Apple tools are fine so long as you rigidly conform to what the system developers think is a good way to do things. Once you get beyond that, the "great Apple experience" kind of falls apart. It's more about the "we know what's good for you" mentality of Apple than anything else.

        It's almost like Windows in that respect.

        It's a much more bearable system if you ignore as much of the vendor supplied stuff as possible. Although in this case it is features and flexibility rather than crashes and malware.

        It's best if you don't stray off the reservation.

      2. sT0rNG b4R3 duRiD

        RE: What does a windows box do that a Mac doesn't?


        Although, I take the point you can boot into windows natively on a mac, but then your mac is now a windows box isn't it?

  17. Jean-Paul

    If Windows 7 was out 10 years ago

    I'd probably wouldn't have migrated to a Mac ;-)

    Light but interesting piece. Scarily I have that exact same box sitting in my media library and still running on the original Yosemite Mac.

    I like OS X though now on Snow Leopard, it has moved on a lot. And Spotlight has made the finder as good as obsolete for me for 'browsing' files. Meta data and search and the integrated browsers from within the applications make it a joy to use. Quick apple+spacebar for me to launch or find any document I require

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    I always wondered why Apple used the cat naming convention, considering that the MacIntosh family motto is: "Touch not the cat, but a glove"

    Roughly translated as "Don't stroke a wild cat without a chain mail glove on, becuase it'll have your face off"

    Do they know about the MacIntosh/cat links, or is this just a coinsidence?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    I always wonder how things would've turned out if Apple had gone with BeOS instead.

    1. Chad H.


      At a guess, I'd say Steve Jobs wouldnt have gotten credit for Jonathan Ive's ideas.

      Or they went bankrupt. Depending on how much of an Impact you believe steve has.

  20. kain preacher Silver badge

    Power shell

    Is now included with windows 7 premium or better .

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shame on You!

    Jeez , you mark the 10th birthday of an operating system, yet ignore William Shatner's 80th birthday last Tuesday.

    p.s Leonard Nimoy is 80 on Saturday.

  22. Tony Martin

    Openstep was agnostic

    Openstep was created platform agnostic. I believe it was able to run on 68000, the predecessor of PPC, and later adopted Intel.

  23. Stuart Duel

    @ Andy Christ

    Actually, Snow Leopard was originally slated for both Intel and PPC G4 and G5 processors above a certain GHz rating and with 2+ cores or physical processors but all references to Snow Leopard on PPC were mysteriously pulled. No doubt an infuriating situation at the time for relatively new G5 owners and after Steve Jobs' promise of supporting PPC for "many years to come".

    I have no doubt that Snow Leopard was meant to be the last hurrah for PPC and would have given this platform a mighty boost in performance. Someone decided otherwise unfortunately. We are left to imagine what could have been.

    The Power Mac shown on Page 2 of this article, is from the same family of machines I'm using right now, the "Quicksilver" (mine upgraded to a dual 1.73 GHz G4 processor), almost ten years old now itself, still going strong and still running rings around my three year old Dell XP desktop at work.

    1. dylan 4

      "relatively new" PPC owners?

      Snow Leopard was released just over 3 years after the G5's were discontinued. I would posit that "three years old" is not "relatively new" in the life of a desktop PC, and that even if it were, anyone who bought one of those final machines should have been well aware they were buying obsolete, legacy hardware. Perhaps not "obsolete" in performance terms, but certainly in terms of the development roadmap.

      Whatever Jobs may have said about supporting PPC "for many years to come", one would be naive to think that would mean indefinite active development of the OS. The death of PPC on the Mac desktop was obvious 18 months before the G5s were finally discontinued.

      If when Lion comes out it doesn't support my first-gen intel iMac, I won't be surprised or upset - I'll recognise that SL still works fine as do the apps I currently run, and that any apps that require Lion would probably run better on newer hardware anyway.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      One mightly pissed off G5 owner here... I got my G5 running 10.4 some time around 2005/6 (IIRC) and it's already out of support, with apple asking for an arm-and-a-leg for an upgrade to 10.5. I like Mac OS, but it's too expensive as is the hardware. It would be a different matter if I thought they'd support the hardware/OS for similar amounts of time to MS, but they just don't seem interested. Have you seen how much a mac mini costs? I mean, they're supposed to be the inexpensive option so sadly, it'll be Win/Lin for me from now on.

      1. Ted Treen


        I have a 2005 G5 dual 2.0GHz. It runs Leopard very well. Unfortunately my employers upgraded CS to CS5 last June, which is Intel only.

        To enable continued working from home I got an 8-core Nehalem MacPro with 12GB Ram which is a lot faster.

        Best beloved has claimed the G5, but I still use it sometimes, and it's still a delight - although the MacPro knocks it for 6 when video re-encoding.

        It all depends, I suppose, on what you're using it for

  24. Kristian Walsh

    My T-Shirt...

    ...has "The Future is Now" on the back of it.

    Carbon wasn't the reason for Finder's performance sucking, by the way. was (and is) written in pure Cocoa, and its performance was an order of magnitude worse than Finder. We were made to use, but it was impossible. I kept using Eudora, but hacked its mail-agent string to say Apple Mail instead. Eventually my manager found out, and... asked me to do the same to his copy :)

    A lot of the poor performance was the move from MetroWerks C and Apple MrC as used in OS 9 to gcc as used in NeXTStep/OS X. Before Apple started using it, gcc had very little optimisation for PowerPC, and worse, it did some high-level optimisations that benefitted Intel code at the expense of other platforms.

  25. Anonymous Coward

    Finder? Launchpad?

    This looks interesting

    I must admit, finding stuff by keyword search rather than folder trundle seems appealing but I wonder what the down sides may be?

  26. The Unexpected Bill

    It doesn't seem like ten years ago...

    Right now I have a copy of the Mac OS X public beta sitting on my desk. I've never run it, though I did try to boot it up on a Power Macintosh 9600/350 a couple of years back. It only got so far before locking up. I never did try to troubleshoot it.

    I remember hating to see the clean, classic look and feel of Mac OS 9 and prior vanish in OS X, but it didn't take long to get used to the VASTLY improved stability and actual pre-emptive multitasking! These days, even considering how much simple charm (is that even what I want to say?) the Classic Mac OS has, I'm not sure I could go back...

  27. Goat Jam


    Crashing, "a not uncommon event even in the Mac OS 9 era"

    Sir, your understatement is a thing of beauty . . .

    1. Nick Fisher

      OS X public beta

      The beta was time-limited IIRC. Judicious resetting of your system clock may allow it to boot.

  28. Liam Proven

    To answer a few questions...

    I have to agree with the commenters who say that the Classic MacOS Finder was more pleasant - and in quite a few ways, better-featured. I don't like the new one much & never did. The Dock is fine but insufficiently flexible and customisable.

    No, TotalFinder etc. are not adequate replacements.

    BeOS - it was a superb OS, I loved it. But if Apple had bought it, it would be dead & gone by now. BeOS didn't have the world-leading development tools - they were as important as NeXTstep's polish.

    Those who find Macs constraining and prefer Windows just have no taste; but then, most people have no taste, and most of them don't know it.

    As for those whinging about iPhoto etc. - those are *apps*. They are not part of the OS, they're just bundled. You don't have to use them. I don't. There are other choices out there - lots of them once you include FOSS stuff.

    P.S. Small typo: "migirate"?

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    OS X is UNIX

    Not only do we have a "command line", we actually have UNIX now. (

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019